Accentuated-Rhetoric Structure of the "Inclusivity" in Persian

جستارهای نوین ادبی

Article 6, Volume 51, Issue 4 - Serial Number 204, March 2019, Pages 117-137   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jls.v51i4.79091

Author

Farhad Mohammadi^*

University of Azerbaijan Shahid Madani, Tabriz

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

In Persian, there are two basic processes to convey the syntactic structure of discourse according to the applied situation and the appropriateness of the addressee: the process of moving components and the process of transformation in structure and form. "Inclusivity" is one of the concepts that by using the process of change in structure and form, the preliminary and simple expression of discourse is converted to emphatic construction. Normal and simple expression of "inclusivity" is or it may be accompanied by signs such as "any" and "all". This simple form is created in situations where it is necessary to emphasize the subject and to make it understandable for audience, with syntactic mechanisms, modifying the basic and simple structure of the sentence that results in another syntactic structure expressing the intended opinion with emphasis.

Review of Literature

Change in the structure of a discourse is one of the syntactic capacities in Persian that is used for rhetoric purposes. Sometimes the difference between two sentences that express the same concept is not due to the displacement of the components and the lexical arrangement. It is caused by changes in the type and form of the components, such as the affirmation or negation, change in the form and time of the verbs, and in the type of sentences. By moving the components of the word, only different forms of a syntactic structure are obtained, in which the lexical arrangement is different, but the purpose of changing the syntactic structure is to change the nature of the structures without altering the conveyed meaning. Therefore, change in the type and form of the components is thus considered as one of the syntactic capacities of the Persian language in rhetoric.
The subject of this research is in the field of syntactic rhetoric and there are many articles and books written in the field, all of which somehow go back to the "theory of semantic knowledge" of Jorjani, known as "syntactic theory (Elm-olMa’ani)", in other words, "the poet's and literary awareness of the syntactic uses of language and the role of each structure in any case" (ShafieiKadkani, 1997, p. 31). Therefore, what is directly related to this research, and the research literature on this subject needs to be pointed out is merely the work on the concept of inclusivity and the process of 'change in structure and form'.
In this regard only in the book "an introduction to Persian rhetoric based on Sa’di's speech" on the one hand, there is a brief discussion on "change in form" as one of the contexts of rhetoric in Persian (Mohammadi, 1977, p. 31) and on the other hand, in one discourse, the syntactic structure of articulation has been examined, where both its metaphors are limited and some of its main points have been ignored (ibid., pp. 185-188). Of course, in the third volume of the book "History of Persian Language", Khanleri also mentions sentences made with the semiotic signs of "every" and "everybody" (Nathal-Khanleri, 1987: Vol. 3, pp. 426-436), with the exception that he did not discuss the topic by way of inclusivity and addressed it only from a grammatical point of view. Except for these two cases, no other material has been written on sentences with the meaning of inclusivity. Much research has also been done in relation to the emphasis, which is implicit in the present subject, such as Khosrow Farshidar's articles which have examined the emphasis and curtailing in the Persian language in detail which were published in several editions. His work focuses more on the use of methods such as synonyms, partial repetition of the word for emphasis, the use of accentual terms, and the use of adjectives (Farshidvard, 1975, p. 387). None of the work on the emphasis has been made on the capacity for change in the form and structure of a sentence.

Method

This article analyzes literary works by citing examples of nature and the underlying structural status of inclusivity. To do this, we examine the concept of inclusivity through a practical approach concerning the change in the syntactic structure of rhetorical expressions to explain the process of converting the simple expression of this concept into an emphatic structure.

Results and Discussion

The linguistic sign in the basic and ordinary form of expression is that the sentence is accompanied by, or may be accompanied by "any" or "all". In addition to the linguistic sign, there is also a semantic sign, such that the sentence is semantically embodied in a general sentence or in a pervasive concept. The following table illustrates the status of a simple sentence for the notion of inclusivity in both normal and accentual modes to reflect its changes during the transformation of ordinary structure into an emphatic one:
 




Ordinary form of inclusivity


Emphatic form of inclusivity




A sentence with an affirmative verb


A sentence with a negative verb




A sentence with a negative Verb = Negative Inclusivity = Global Negative


Note: The attributive verb added to the emphatic structure is always negative




 
The state of the verbs in the compound sentences of the notion of ordinary and emphatic expression is also shown in the following table:
 




Ordinary form of inclusivity


Emphatic form of inclusivity




Follower sentence = positive + Base sentence = positive
 


A) No use of negative attribution: Both negative sentences
 
B) Use of the negative attribute verb: follower sentence = positive; base sentence= negative




Follower sentence = negative + base sentence = negative
 


A) No use of negative attribute verb: follower sentence= negative; base sentence = positive (unusual and impractical form)
 
B) Use of the negative attribute verb: follower sentence= negative; base sentence= positive (common and applicable)




Follower sentence = negative
Base sentence = positive
 


A) No use of negative attribution: Both negative sentences
 
B) Use of negative attribute verb: Both negative sentences




Follower sentence = positive + base sentence = negative
 


A) Non-use of negative attribute verb: follower sentence = negative; base sentence= positive
 
B) Use of negative attribution verb: Both positive sentences




As a comparison, it should be noted that the use of negative attributive verbs in the emphatic structure is more applicable and appropriate than the one not used.

Conclusion

From this study, it can be seen that the change in form and structure is one of the syntactic-rhetorical capacities in Persian language through which rhetorical expressions are expressed. In this study, it is practically illustrated by examples of how a simple and ordinary expression of the concept of inclusivity becomes a subliminal structure, and with what syntactic mechanism. In situations where there is a strong construction of inclusive expression, the addressee is in a position to deny or doubt the subject of the speaker. In such a case, the purpose of the speaker is no longer the expression of the essence of the news, as in the original form, but the speaker uses this construction to prove the reality of the subject. From this perspective, it is suggested that other constructs and concepts, such as the concept of inclusivity discussed here, be explored to better illustrate the extent to which this linguistic capacity is applied. This will identify how the ordinary expression of concepts is and how the ordinary structure of the concepts is altered, as well as how the rhetorical function of each of the ordinary structures will be understood by the target audience.
 

Keywords

Persian language; inclusion concept; Rhetoric; changing structure; emphasis

Supplementary Files

79091-متن مقاله به فرمت PDF-356423-1-10-20200229.pdf

References

انوری ابیوردی، اوحدالدین علی‌بن‌محمد. (1372). دیوان (2جلدی). به اهتمام محمدتقی مدرّس رضوی. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.

بیهقی، ابوالفضل محمدبن‌حسین. (1374). تاریخ بیهقی. تصحیح علی اکبر فیاض. چاپ چهارم. تهران: علم.

حافظ، شمس‌الدین محمد. (1362). دیوان حافظ. تصحیح پرویز ناتل خانلری. چاپ اول. تهران: خوارزمی.

رضانژاد، غلامحسین. (1367). اصول علم بلاغت در زبان فارسی. چاپ اول. تهران: الزهراء.

سعدی، مصلح‌الدین. (1394). غزل‌های سعدی. تصحیح و توضیح غلامحسین یوسفی. چاپ دوم. تهران: سخن.

سعدی، مصلح‌الدین. (1384 الف). بوستان سعدی. تصحیح و توضیح غلامحسین یوسفی. چاپ هشتم. تهران: خوارزمی.

سعدی، مصلح‌الدین. (1384 ب). گلستان سعدی. تصحیح و توضیح غلامحسین یوسفی. چاپ هفتم. تهران: خوارزمی.

شفیعی‌کدکنی، محمدرضا. (1376). موسیقی شعر. چاپ پنجم. تهران: آگه.

فتوحی، محمود. (1392). سبک‌شناسی. چاپ دوم. تهران: سخن.

فرشیدورد، خسرو. (1354). مقالۀ «تأکید و قصر در زبان فارسی 1». مجلۀ گوهر. شمارۀ 29. صص 385 ـ 389.

کیکاووس‌بن‌اسکندر، عنصرالمعالی. (1352). قابوسنامه. تحصیح غلامحسین یوسفی. چاپ دوم. تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.

محمدی، فرهاد. (1397). درآمدی بر بلاغت زبان فارسی بر پایۀ سخن سعدی. چاپ اول. تهران: پژوهش روزگار.

مولوی، جلال‌الدین محمد. (1386). مثنوی‌معنوی. چاپ چهارم. تهران: هرمس.

مولوی، جلال‌الدین محمد. (1363). کلیّات شمس. تصحیح بدیع‌الزمان فروزانفر. چاپ سوم. تهران: امیرکبیر.

میهنی، محمد بن منوّر. (1376). اسرارالتوحید فی مقامات الشیخ ابی‌سعید (2جلد). مقدمه، تصحیح و تعلیقات محمدرضا شفیعی‌کدکنی. چاپ چهارم. تهران: آگه.

ناتل‌خانلری، پرویز. (1366). تاریخ زبان فارسی (ج3). چاپ سوم. تهران: نشر نو.

نادرپور، نادر. (1382). مجموعه اشعار. چاپ دوم. تهران: انتشارات نگاه.

ناصرخسرو قبادیانی، ابومعین. (1357). دیوان اشعار. به اهتمام مجتبی مینوی و مهدی محقق. تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات اسلامی دانشگاه مک گیل با همکاری دانشگاه تهران.

نظامی، الیاس بن یوسف. (1387). هفت پیکر. تصحیح حسن‌وحید دستگردی. به کوشش سعید حمیدیان. چاپ هفتم. تهران: قطره.